The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01789-7

SOCIETAL LCA

Using Social Life Cycle Assessment to analyze the contribution

of products to the Sustainable Development Goals: a case study
in the textile sector
Ana María Herrera Almanza 1 & Blanca Corona 1

Received: 28 January 2020 / Accepted: 30 June 2020

# The Author(s) 2020

Abstract
Purpose Evaluation and monitoring systems are perceived as an effective tool to understand and improve the contribution of
business activities to the accomplishment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, there is currently a lack of
guidance and support on assessing the influence that the life cycle of products and services has on the SDGs. This article presents
a case study where Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) is applied to understand the social performance of a textile product
and its potential contribution to the SDGs.
Methods In this study, the link between the S-LCA methodology and the SDG framework was made at the indicator level,
through a new classification of S-LCA indicators. This classification was aimed at indicating the positive or negative contribution
of products or services into the SDGs. The method was tested with the case study of a man’s shirt whose supply chain takes place
across five countries, from the cotton farming in China to the retailing in The Netherlands. The social performance of the shirt’s
life cycle was analyzed through a social hotspot assessment (using PSILCA database) and a site-specific assessment following
the UNEP/SETAC S-LCA guidelines. Primary data was collected for 6 different suppliers regarding 51 social indicators and four
stakeholder categories (workers, local communities, value chain actors, and society).
Results and discussion The social hotspot assessment indicated high social risks on indicators related to the following SDGs:
health and well-being, affordable and clean energy, decent work, and responsible production and consumption. These risks were
mainly located in Bangladesh (shirt manufacturing) and Malaysia (fabric manufacturing). The site-specific assessment indicated
different results than the social risk assessment, showing worse social performance in the spinning stage (located in China).
Negative scores were obtained for every supplier in at least four indicators, including working hours, safe and healthy living
conditions, and access to immaterial resources.
Conclusions The results indicated negative social performance of the supply chain in most of the SDGs and identified points of
improvement for the final retailer. The linkage of the S-LCA framework with the SDGs presented methodological challenges,
mainly related to the different scope of the SDG indicators and the S-LCA indicators.

Keywords S-LCA . SDG . Social hotspot . Textile . Supply chain . Product level

1 Introduction

Responsible editor: Marzia Traverso
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01789-7) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Blanca Corona
b.c.coronabellostas@uu.nl
1 Nations 2019a). While some of these goals were achieved
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht
University, Vening Meinesz building A, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584
CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
In 1992, the United Nations declared sustainability as the
main political goal to achieve future development (United
Nations, 1992) and created a blueprint for sustainable devel-
opment implementation (the Agenda 21). Eight years later,
seven time-bound and measurable sustainability goals (the
Millennium Development Goals) were agreed by the UN as
a worldwide strategy to increase sustainability (United
by the target date in 2015, some sustainability issues (e.g.,
gender inequality or environmental degradation) were still in

need of further progress. This prompted in 2015 the introduc-
tion of seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
(see Box 1), aimed at shaping the sustainable development
agenda for a more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable so-
ciety by 2030 (United Nations 2019a). The SDGs are orga-
nized into a global indicator framework, developed by the
Inter-Agency and Expert Group on SDG Indicators (United
Nations 2019b). According to this framework, each of the
seventeen SDGs includes a list of targets, whose progress is
measured through indicators (in total, 230 indicators).
Fulfillment of the SDGs requires actions worldwide, not
only from governments but also from the business and indus-
trial sectors. An effective way to understand and improve the
effects of business into the SDGs is the use of monitoring and
evaluation systems (Scheyvens et al. 2016). Such systems can
serve as guidelines for improvement, since they can point out
main business opportunities and threats in the road to SDG
accomplishment. Several tools and frameworks have been de-
veloped by scholars, governmental institutions, and consul-
tancy firms trying to map, report, and even engage the SDGs
into business strategies. Some of them are designed for a spe-
cific case study or field, and others are applicable to any kind
of field/business. Examples of the latter are the SDG Compass
framework by the UN, which guides in the visualization of the
organizational contributions to the SDGs, or the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines for reporting the impact
of the organizational activities over the SDGs. The SDG
Selector framework proposed by the PWC helps in identifying
which SDGs should be embraced by a company due to their
relevance according to the business activities (PWC 2015).
However, there is a lack of guidance and support on how to
introduce, implement, and assess the contribution of product
supply chains to the SDGs while considering a life cycle per-
spective (Weidema et al. 2018).
Box 1The 17 Sustainable Development Goals
Sustainable Development Goals
Goal 1: No poverty
Goal 2: Zero hunger
Goal 3: Good health and well-being
Goal 4: Quality education
Goal 5: Gender equality
Goal 6: Clean water and sanitation
Goal 7: Affordable and clean energy
Goal 8: Decent work and economic growth
Goal 9: Industry, innovation, and infrastructure
Goal 10: Reduced inequality
Goal 11: Sustainable cities and communities
Goal 12: Responsible consumption and production
Goal 13: Climate action
Goal 14: Life below water
Goal 15: Life on land
Goal 16: Peace and justice strong institutions
Goal 17: Partnerships to achieve the goal
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been identified as a po-
tential tool that could be used to measure the progress of
business activities and products into the SDG (Goedkoop
et al. 2017). The LCA methodology is considered the most
appropriate methodology to assess the environmental impacts
of products or services along their supply chain, from the
extraction of raw materials until their final disposal
(European Commission 2003). Although the original method-
ology is mainly focused on environmental impacts, it has also
been expanded to cover economic and social impacts through
the Life Cycle Costing and Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-
LCA) methodologies. S-LCA methodology is still at early
stages of development (Martínez-Blanco et al. 2015), due
mainly to the complexity of social systems and the difficulty
of translating qualitative data into quantitative indicators
(Corona et al. 2017; Kühnen and Hahn 2017). Nevertheless,
its application and development have been intense in the last
years, aiming at providing high-quality assessments of the
social impacts related to products, services, and organizations.
There are a few studies linking LCA-derived indicators
with the SDGs, mainly focusing on environmental LCA indi-
cators (JRC 2019), and to a lower extent, on S-LCA indica-
tors. Vermeulen (2018) discussed the inclusion of the SD
agenda into the endpoint and midpoint impacts of Life Cycle
Sustainability Assessment (LCSA).1 By revising each of the
SDGs (and sub-goals), Vermeulen detected that only 25% of
the SDGs were formulated in terms of endpoint impacts
(achieved social well-being), and most of the sub-goals
(39%) were formulated in terms of policy outputs (e.g., plans
or regulations). Additionally, the SDGs focus mostly on gov-
ernment roles, while LCSA is more focused on business and
other actors. Vermeulen proposed an integrated LCSA frame-
work aligned to the SDGs, where some goals were linked to
midpoint impacts and others to endpoint impacts. Eisfeldt and
Ciroth (2017), developers of the S-LCA database PSILCA,
showed how the results of a social hotspots analysis with
PSILCA could be used to support progress on several SDGs
(in particular, SDGs 5 and 8). Wulf et al. (2018) linked 32 out
of the 54 social indicators provided by the PSILCA database,
together with other environmental and economic indicators
(calculated with E-LCA and LCC methodologies) to the
SDGs. The study differentiated two different levels of linkage
with the SDGs: (1) at the goal level (linking indicators that
aligned to the general aim of the 17 SDG goals) and (2) at the
indicator level (linking indicators that align with the SDG
indicators proposed by the UN global indicator framework).
They specified that some important social issues (such as
forced labor) were not included in the SDG indicators.
1
Midpoint impacts typically represent the change (increase or decrease) of
specific pollutants or undesired issues (e.g., increased kg CO2 eq in the atmo-
sphere), while endpoint impacts relate to the severity of the consequences of
such change on areas of protection (e.g., the damage of such CO2 eq increase
in the human health, measured in years of life lost).
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Likewise, they also found several SDGs (at the goal and indi-
cator levels) that were not addressed by the LCSA methodol-
ogies (e.g., SDGs 2 and 11 at the goal level, and SDGs 5, 9,
13, and 15 at the indicator level). The mismatch between goal
linkage and indicator linkage was related to the different per-
spective of the frameworks. For instance, although the SDG
13 aims at combating climate change, the E-LCA indicator is
related to mitigation, while the SDG indicator is related to
adaptation. In line with Vermeulen’s findings, Wulf et al.
(2018) concluded that the macro level of the SDGs rarely fits
with the micro level of product assessments, which hinders a
clear understanding of the contribution of products to the
SDGs.
Aside from the abovementioned studies, the current litera-
ture exploring the link between LCA and SDGs is scarce, and
research and case studies are needed to better understand the
opportunities and possibilities. This study has a double aim,
enabled by a case study on the textile sector: (1) exploring the
possibilities of using S-LCA results to understand the poten-
tial contribution of specific products and services to the SDGs,
and (2) dive into the social impacts along the supply chain of
textile products, where social impacts have been scarcely
assessed in detail from a life cycle perspective. The first aim
is methodological in nature, while the second aim is focused
on the social performance of a textile product. The textile and
apparel industry is especially relevant for social sustainability,
due to the negative social impacts that affect many of the
stakeholders involved in these supply chains (Köksal et al.
2017). For instance, workers’ wages have declined by 25%
in the last decade and usually do not provide for living stan-
dards (Annapoorani 2017; Wick 2009). Overtime is not duly
regulated in countries with high production of textile products;
e.g., Bangladeshi factories have an average of 28 h/week of
overtime, where the legal maximum allowed is 12 h/week
(Asif 2017). Child labor still has 12% of global presence ac-
cording to the latest International Labor Report (ILO 2017).
Besides, there are reports of repression against labor unions
and gender discrimination related to sexual harassment, abuse,
and lower income earnings than male counterparts
(Annapoorani 2017; Asif 2017; Wick 2009). Finally, workers’
and local communities’ health are in continuous risk due to the
poor infrastructure and machinery of factories. These have
generated noise pollution—many textile machines located in
single rooms can reach cumulative noise levels by at least
5 dB beyond maximum noise levels (Jayawardana et al.
2014)—, lethal fires—eight of them in Bangladeshi factories
since 2005–2018, leaving 414 deaths—, and building col-
lapses, where the most remembered one was the Rana Plaza
Building on April 24, 2013, leaving at least 1129 deaths
(Anner et al. 2013).
However, just a few S-LCA peer-reviewed case studies
have been published on textile products, mostly based on gen-
eral social risk assessment, or focused on a few stakeholder
categories. One study performed a complete S-LCA based on
the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines (UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative 2009), to a woven garment made in an Italian factory
(Lenzo et al. 2017) where only the stakeholder workers and
local community were assessed. The study highlighted the
difficulty in obtaining site-specific data from suppliers and
customers but identified S-LCA as a valuable tool to support
business decisions regarding social impacts. Other case stud-
ies looked at the social life cycle risks of different textile
products by assessing social hotspots with the Social
Hotspots Database (SHDB). These assessments were focused
on textile products (e.g., shirts, jeans, and dresses) commer-
cialized in Scandinavian countries and produced in Asian
countries (Roos et al. 2016; Valente et al. 2015; Zamani
et al. 2018). They highlighted the risks of child labor, low
wages, and carcinogenic exposure within the related sectors
in China and Bangladesh. Another study explored the social
life cycle impacts of clothing items in the workers category,
through the monetization of external socioeconomic costs
(van der Velden and Vogtländer 2017). This study found that
the social hotspots of the production chain from six standard
clothing items were the Indian cotton fields and the
Bangladesh garment factories.
This article provides a complete case study of a man’s
cotton shirt, using primary data from the shirt’s production
units and looking at four stakeholder categories.
2 Methods
This study is based on the methodology proposed by the S-
LCA guidelines published by the UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative (UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 2009). The
methodology is based on the same four steps as indicated for
environmental LCA in the ISO series 14040 (ISO 2006): (1)
definition of goal and scope, (2) life cycle inventory analysis,
(3) life cycle impact assessment, and (4) interpretation. The
first two steps are detailed in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, respective-
ly, and the last two steps are detailed in Sections 3 and 4.
The procedure to link the S-LCA methodology with the
SDGs is explained in Section 2.4.
2.1 Goal and scope definition
The goal of this S-LCA was to assess the social sustainability
performance of a man’s shirt, by mapping and identifying
social impacts and points of improvement along the products’
life cycle. The shirt under study is currently commercialized
by a fashion chain based in The Netherlands. The results of
this assessment were used to propose action plans that miti-
gate current and potential negative social impacts affecting the
SDG accomplishment. The assessment was conducted in two
steps: (1) a social risk hotspots assessment and (2) a site-

Fig. 1 System boundaries and supply chain of the shirt under study
specific assessment. The first assessment was conducted in
order to identify points of the supply chain where social risks
are higher, and therefore, site-specific data search should be
prioritized. This first assessment also gave information on the
social risks for one of the suppliers that could not be identified
for the site-specific assessment (the cotton farmer). The sec-
ond assessment was performed in order to map the main neg-
ative and positive social issues per SDG and identify points of
improvement.
The functional unit for this study was defined as “a white,
long-sleeve, medium size (M) man’s shirt, of 243 g weight,
and made of 97% cotton and 3% elastane.” This garment is
worn by men, mainly for working and assisting to special
events. Due to the insignificant weight share of the elastane
(3%) and the plastic buttons contained in the shirt (1%), these
two components were not included in the study.
The current supply chain of the shirt includes the countries
of China, Malaysia, B ang ladesh , Mya nmar, a nd
The Netherlands. Figure 1 shows the simplified system
boundaries and supply chain of the shirt under study. Raw
material extraction and adaptation (ginning and spinning) oc-
cur in China. The cotton yarn is then sold to a textile mill
located in Malaysia, where fabric is produced (including
weaving, washing, and bleaching). Afterwards, the fabric is
sold to apparel factories, or better known in the industry as
ready-made garment (RMG) factories, located in Bangladesh
and in Myanmar. The finished garment is then delivered to the
factories that commanded the order, in Bangladesh and China,
respectively, whose only contribution to the supply chain is
the performance of a final quality control inspection before
delivering the shipment to the apparel retailer in
The Netherlands. The exact companies involved in the supply
chain are kept anonymous due to confidentiality agreements.
Four stakeholder categories were considered in the study:
workers, local communities, value chain actors, and society.
The stakeholder category related to consumers was not includ-
ed in the study, since the system boundaries were defined as
from “cradle to gate,” and only the production and retailing of
the shirt were analyzed. Thirty sub-categories related to the
aforementioned stakeholder categories were analyzed, as re-
ported in Table 2. These sub-categories were defined consid-
ering the UNEP/SETAC S-LCA methodological sheets
(Benoît Norris et al. 2013).
Int J Life Cycle Assess
The social performance of the shirt was assessed following
a two-step approach. First, a social hotspots2 analysis was
performed in order to detect potential social risks in the shirt’s
supply chain. This analysis was conducted using the PSILCA
database and the SimaPro software. Second, a site-specific
social assessment was performed considering primary data
on the supplier’s social performance, and considering the so-
cial categories proposed by the UNEP/SETAC Guidelines
(see more information on Section 2.3).
2.2 Life cycle inventory analysis
Two types of data were collected for this research: general
data and site-specific data. General data relates to the potential
social risks found at the industrial sectors involved in the value
chain of interest, and site-specific data relates to social issues
taking place in the production sites of the shirt’s value chain.
2.2.1 Data collection for the social hotspots analysis
The Psilca database implemented in the SimaPro software was
used to obtain and explore the life cycle social risks associated
with the sectors directly involved in the shirt supply chain, in a
so-called hotspots analysis. All the available indicators of the
PSILCA database were used in the social hotspots analysis,
although only 43 indicators (out of 49) were later classified
into SDGs (as explained in Section 2.4). The social hotspots
analysis required the use of primary data regarding monetary
demands to each economic sector directly involved in the
supply chain. Therefore, cost inventory data was collected
and used to model the supply chain with PSILCA. This infor-
mation was obtained by asking to each supplier for their end-
product’s selling price. The provided prices were converted
into the currency used by the PSILCA database (USD), con-
sidering inflation rates for each country. For the production
units upstream of the shirt manufacturer, the given values
required the conversion to a value per functional unit.
Finally, the calculated values per functional unit for every
supplier were modeled as the monetary demand to the country
2
A social hotspot refers to a specific situation within a region that can be
regarded as a problem, a risk, or an opportunity in terms of social concern
(UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative 2009).
Int J Life Cycle Assess

economic sectors (CES) representing each activity of the sup-
ply chain. Table 1 contains the CES selected in PSILCA to
represent the activities of the shirt’s life cycle, and the corre-
sponding monetary inputs. The retailer indicated two different
manufacturers for the shirt, one located in Myanmar and the
other one in Bangladesh. In order to account for the potential
social risks occurring in both countries, it was assumed that
half of the supply was provided by the Myanmar’s textiles and
wearing apparel sector and the other half by the corresponding
Bangladeshi sector. The amount of monetary input required
by each CES was adjusted accordingly.
filled by the corporate social responsibility (CSR) manager.
Every unit in the supply chain completed the questionnaire
except for the Chinese cotton farmer, who could not be iden-
tified. Therefore, the cotton cultivation was excluded from the
site-specific assessment. The questionnaires were distributed
in English, except for the one filled out by the Chinese pro-
duction unit that was translated into Chinese.
Specific information was also gathered regarding the work-
er hours of each company involved in the supply chain. This
information was used as activity variable for the aggregation
of characterized results along the shirt’s life cycle (see
Section 2.3 for more information on activity variables).

2.2.2 Site-specific data collection

Site-specific data was collected through questionnaires sent to
each production unit of the supply chain. The questionnaires
contained 64 questions, addressing indicators from every sub-
category considered under the scope of the research. The in-
dicators were chosen following the recommendations from the
UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets (Benoît Norris et al.
2013), and describe objective situational features that are ob-
jectively verifiable (Kühnen and Hahn 2017). The indicators
used in this study are, therefore, not an indication of how
stakeholders subjectively experience the indicated situational
feature. A total of 51 indicators were gathered for this study, of
which 21 indicators corresponded to the workers stakeholder
category, 17 indicators to local communities, 7 indicators to
value chain actors, and 6 indicators to society. The complete
questionnaire and list of indicators chosen for each sub-
category are available in the Supporting Information. Eight
questionnaires were filled out by the managers of the produc-
tion units, except for the Dutch retailer questionnaire that was
2.3 Life cycle impact assessment
The impact assessment step in this analysis follows the type 1
approach. This approach uses performance reference points
(PRP) to assess the social performance of the company, by
comparing the indicator results of the shirt’s life cycle with
social international standards (UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle
Initiative 2009).
2.3.1 Social hotspots assessment
The generic social hotspots assessment was performed with
SimaPro, by using the method provided by the PSILCA data-
base (Eisfeldt and Ciroth 2018). This method assesses the
indicators by assigning different risk levels depending on the
value of the indicator. Typically, six levels are distinguished,
ranging from no risk to very high risk. The activity variable
used to reflect the relevance of each activity within the life
cycle is worker hours, and the risk assessment result for every

Table 1 Inventory inputs for the social risk assessment of the shirt’s life cycle

Life cycle stage End product Purchase cost/FU, in Country economic sector (PSILCA) Input value (PSILCA), in
USD 2015 USD 2015

Cotton cultivation Raw cotton 0.23 Crop cultivation/China (CN) 0.23

Cotton ginning and spinning Cotton thread 1.69 Cotton textiles/China (CN)* 1.69
Fabric manufacture Cotton fabric 4.53 Knitted fabrics/Malaysia (MY)* 4.53
Shirt manufacturing (50% Cotton shirt from 5.19 Textiles and wearing 2.60
in Myanmar and 50% in Myanmar apparel/Myanmar (MN)*
Bangladesh) Cotton shirt from 5.72 Textiles and wearing 2.86
Bangladesh apparel/Bangladesh (BD)*
Clothing retailing Cotton 29.35 Retail trade, except for motor 23.89†
commercialization vehicles and
motorcycles, repair of personal
and household
goods/The Netherlands (NL)*

*Only the direct social risks from these sectors were included in the model (and not the indirect social risks associated with inputs from other sectors).
This was done in order to avoid two issues: (1) double counting of risks from directly demanded sectors who are indirectly demanded by other sectors
already included in the model, and (2) influences of exports and imports from countries not directly related to the supply chain under study
†
The input amount was calculated by subtracting the shirt’s manufacturing price from the selling price of the retailer

indicator is normalized into “medium risk hours” by assigning
different factors to the different risk levels. The PRP used to
estimate the risk levels are based on international conventions
and standards, expert opinions, and the database developer’s
experience and evaluation.
2.3.2 Site-specific assessment
The PRP for the site-specific assessment were retrieved from
the International Labor Organization (ILO) conventions, the
ISO 26000 guidelines, the OECD Guidelines for
Multinational Enterprises, the IFC Performance Standards
on Social and Environmental Sustainability, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protocols and
codes of conducts, and certifications like the BSCI and
SA8000. The social performance in each sub-category was
assessed by characterizing the indicator according to six
levels: A: representing much better than above compliance;
B: above compliance; C: compliance; D: not compliance; and
E: worse than no compliance. A compliance level C was
awarded when the supplier performed as indicated by the
PRP. For instance, if the PRP to evaluate “number of overtime
hours per week” indicated that the overtime should not exceed
12 h per week, indicators reporting 12 h/week would get a C
level, indicators of 7–11 h/week would get a B level, and
indicators with less than 6 h/week would get an A level. On
the contrary, indicators reporting 13–16 h/week would obtain
a D level, and more than 17 h/week an E level. The PRP
chosen as reference for each indicator and the assigned rank-
ings are described in detail in the Supporting Information.
Following the proposal by Corona et al. (2017), a quanti-
tative value measured in social performance points (SPP) was
assigned to each of these levels to transform qualitative data
into quantitative data. Thus, A obtained 2 SPP, B obtained 1
SPP, C obtained 0 SPP, D obtained − 1 SPP, and E obtained −
2 SPP.
After all the values per indicator and unit process were
obtained, results for each indicator were combined into a
weighted average. The positive and negative values obtained
in each unit process (for each supplier in the value chain) were
aggregated into a weighted average, using worker hours as
weighting factor or, in other words, as activity variable. For
instance, if the indicator “overtime payment rate” is assigned 1
SPP in one life cycle activity and − 2 SPP in a second activity,
the aggregated value is − 1 SPP when assuming same weights
for both activities. The choice of worker hours as activity
variable is disputable, since not every social issue is directly
related to the worker hours involved in the supply chain (e.g.,
social issues related to local communities or value chain ac-
tors). In order to address the sensitivity of the results with
respect to the activity variable, two different sets of worker
hours were considered for a sensitivity analysis. The first set
(T1) considered activity variable the total amount of hours
Int J Life Cycle Assess
worked by all the employees of each company, assuming that
a bigger company (with more workers) has a higher influence
in every stakeholder and social issue than a smaller company,
independently of the hours allocated to the functional unit of
the study. This activity variable implies that the social effects
of companies with big workforces are higher (both for nega-
tive and for positive social issues) than companies with small
workforces. The second set (T2) considered activity variable
the exact amount of worker hours needed to produce the shirt
by each company. This value was determined by considering
the worker hours allocated to each supplier by the PSILCA
database (e.g., the number of worker hours to manufacture the
shirt in Myanmar is calculated by multiplying the costs of
manufacturing one shirt in Myanmar by the worker hours
needed by such sector to supply one monetary unit of
product).
The results obtained in each indicator were not weighted
into a final aggregated value of social performance due to the
high value load of weighting factors. Therefore, results were
presented separately in an easy-to-visualize layout that
allowed identifying the main negative and positive social is-
sues along the supply chain.
2.4 Linking the SDGs with the S-LCA indicators
The link between the S-LCA results and the SDGs was made
at the indicator level (midpoint level). The S-LCA results per
indicator (for both the general and the site-specific assess-
ment) were classified depending on their relevance for each
of the 17 SDGs. The classification was made by exploring the
SDG targets, the corresponding indicators proposed by the
UN to measure progress in each SDG (United Nations
2019b), and their concordance with the S-LCA indicators.
The UN SDG indicators are aimed at the macro level (e.g.,
global indicators measuring countries’ performance), but the
site-specific S-LCA indicators are aimed at the micro level of
companies, products, or services. Therefore, the linkage of the
site-specific S-LCA indicators with the general goals and tar-
gets resulted to be more appropriate than with the specific UN
indicators, which goes in line with the findings of Wulf et al.
(2018). However, some indicators in the PSILCA database
(which is based on input–output tables at a macro level) could,
and were, directly linked with the macro-level indicators of
the SDGs. After the classification process, 43 indicators from
the PSILCA database were classified into 10 SDGs, and 51
site-specific indicators were classified into 11 SDGs. In order
to give an indication of the magnitude of the risks and main
hotspots within each SDG, the results obtained in the social
hotspots assessment (with PSILCA indicators) were aggregat-
ed by considering equal weights for every indicator classified
into an SDG. The complete classification and basis for the
linkage are included in the Supporting Information. The indi-
cator results for the site-specific assessment were classified
Int J Life Cycle Assess
into the SDGs but not weighted into a single value per SDG,
since a visualization of the main negative and positive social
issues per SDG at the indicator level was found more trans-
parent and useful for the goal of the study than a weighted
aggregation of indicators.
During the classification, it was found that the S-LCA in-
dicators are currently not detailed enough in terms of discrim-
ination issues, contrary to the SDGs, where discrimination
issues are measured through many indicators in several differ-
ent goals (e.g., regarding gender and access from indigenous
communities to education and income). Furthermore, no re-
lated indicators were found for SDGs 2, 13, 14, 15, and 17.
However, some of these SDG are aimed at environmental
preservation (e.g., goals 13, 14, and 15), which is addressed
by environmental LCA and is usually out of the S-LCA scope.
It should also be noted that some SDGs could be addressed by
considering the purpose and practices around specific types of
products, i.e., by the function and opportunities provided by
the product. For instance, the life cycle of an agricultural food
product would necessarily contribute to some extent to SDG
2. Therefore, further examination of the SDGs should be car-
ried out for different types of products. Clothing items are
important since they typically protect the body from environ-
mental hazards and help to define and transmit the cultural
identity of the user. Although there are no SDG targets direct-
ly related to the function of clothing, clothes could be contrib-
uting to targets of SDG 3 (healthy lives and well-being) when
they are aimed at reducing the risks of illnesses or accidents.
For instance, advanced clothes can be developed to prevent
mosquito bites while ensuring transpiration, or designed to
protect against accidents at the workplace (e.g., protecting
gloves or shoes). On the other side, clothes can include mes-
sages that promote gender equality and sustainable behavior,
and therefore, addressing targets of SDGs 4 and 5. In the case
under study, a white male shirt, the function is to cover the
body and give a formal and clean appearance to a male user.
This specific function was not deemed to address any of the
SDG targets.
3 Results
3.1 Social hotspots assessment
Figure 2 shows the potential social risks obtained in each
PSILCA indicator, per life cycle stage and supplier, with-
in the shirt’s life cycle. As observed in Fig. 2, the social
indicators presenting higher social risks are related to
goals 3, 7, 8, 12, and 16. In the goal 3 (good health and
well-being), main risks are associated with low public
health and social security expenditure in Bangladesh,
followed by Myanmar and Malaysia. For affordable and
clean energy (goal 7), the higher risks are associated with
a high extraction of biomass (probably for energy pur-
poses) in the activities of fabric weaving, shirt
manufacturing, and retailing. This indicator from the
PSILCA database assesses the risks of conflicts due to
the exploitation of resources that are basic for the life
and economy of local communities and organizations.
The main risk for decent work and economic growth (goal
8) is related to a low trade union density rate in China,
Bangladesh, and The Netherlands. For responsible con-
sumption and production (goal 12), main risks are related
to a low rate of certified environmental management sys-
tems per employee, in every sector (and mainly in China,
Bangladesh, and The Netherlands). For the peace, justice,
and strong institutions (goal 16), risks are related to low
social responsibility in the supply chain, due to the low
participation of the sectors in the UN Global Compact
Initiative, and to high public sector corruption in
Malaysia (knitted fabrics) and Bangladesh (wearing ap-
parel) (according to the PSILCA database).
Low average risks were found in the indicators related to
fair salary, safety measures, DALY’s due to pollution, youth
female illiteracy, forced and child labor, weekly hours, fatal
accidents, mineral consumption, corruption, and unemploy-
ment. Although the aggregated risk for these social issues
was relatively low along the supply chain, some of these is-
sues indicated high risk of occurrence in specific sectors; for
instance, a high risk of unfair salaries was found in the
Bangladeshi garment sector. This is aligned to the results
found by Zamani et al. (2018), where poverty due to wages
under 2 USD in Bangladeshi garment factories was detected
as a hotspot.
Figure 3 shows the potential social risks aggregated per
SDG and life cycle stage (assuming equal weights for
every indicator contributing to each SDG). According to
the obtained results in Fig. 3, main social risks are related
to the life cycle activities taking place during shirt
manufacturing in Bangladesh for almost every SDG,
followed by fabric manufacturing in Malaysia for SDGs
7, 10, 12, and 16, and retailing in The Netherlands for
SDGs 5, 7, and 8. The Bangladeshi garment sector has
been frequently associated with human rights violations
and poor health and safety conditions of workers (Kamal
2013). Despite the international efforts in improving the
social conditions of Bangladeshi workers, social risks
from this sector are still high in most of the SDGs. The
risk of international migrant workers in the sector is al-
most only present in the Malaysian knitting sector, which
also presents high-risk share of forced labor and child
labor. Since 2013, Malaysia became an emerging econo-
my among the South Asian countries. This caused the
migration of Southeast Asian people, both high and low
skilled (the majority of them low skilled), into the
Malaysian manufacturing industries (Jordaan 2018).
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Fig. 2 Results from the social Fair Salary (G1)

hotspots analysis of the shirt
under study, using the PSILCA
database and evaluation method
(CN, China; MY, Malaysia; MM,
Myanmar; BD, Bangladesh; NL,
The Netherlands). *Contribution
to economic development is the
only category presenting positive
risks instead of negative risks. For
further explanation of the
indicators, see Eisfeldt and Ciroth
(2018)
Workers affected by natural disasters (G1)
Life expectancy at birth (G3)
Health expenditure (G3)
Social security expenditures (G3)
Safety measures (G3)
DALYs due to indoor/ outdoor polluon (G3)
Polluon (G3)
Youth illiteracy, total (G4)
Illiteracy, total (G4) Coon culvaon (CN)
Educaon (G4) Coon thread (CN)
Men in the sectoral labour force Fabric manufacturing (MY)
Child Labour, male
Youth illiteracy, male Shirt manufacturing (MM)
Illiteracy, female (G5) Shirt manufacturing BD)
Youth illiteracy, female (G5)
Retail trade (NL)
Gender wage gap (G5)
Women in the sectoral labour force (G5)
Industrial water depleon (G6)
Drinking water coverage (G6)
Sanitaon coverage (G6)
Fossil fuel consumpon (G7)
Biomass consumpon (G7)
Contrib. to economic development (G8)*
Unemployment (G8)
Frequency of forced labour (G8)
Goods produced by forced labour (G8)
Trafficking in persons (G8)
Child Labour, total (G8)
Fatal accidents (G8)
Non-fatal accidents (G8)
Violaons of empl. laws and regulaons (G8)
Weekly hours of work per employee (G8)
Trade unionism (G8)
Associaon and bargaining rights (G8)
Indigenous rights (G10)
Net migraon (G10)
Internaonal migrant stock (G10)
Internat. migrant workers in sector (G10)
Minerals consumpon (G12)
Contribuon to environmental load (G12)
Cerfied envir. management systems (G12)
Social responsibility supply chain (G16)
Bus. pracces decepve to consumers (G16)
An-compeve business praces (G16)
Acve involv. corrupon and bribery (G16)
Public sector corrupon (G16)
Illiteracy, male
Child Labour, female
0 50 100 150 200
Medium risk hours per shirt
G1: No Poverty G7: Affordable and Clean Energy
G3: Good Health and Well-being G8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
G4: Quality Educaon G10: Reduced Inequality
G5: Gender Equality G12: Responsible Consumpon and Producon
G6: Clean Water and Sanitaon G16: Peace and Jusce Strong Instuons

Thus, according to the ILO statistics (2014), the
Malaysian industries reported 22,000 foreign employees
in the labor market. This phenomenon brings conse-
quences to both immigrants and locals. Immigrants are
subject to lower wages, and lower working conditions in
general (Eisfeldt and Ciroth 2018), whereas opportunities
for local employment may decrease. This situation can
lead to an increase in non-formal jobs, insecurity in urban
areas, and a slowdown of the local economic growth as a
whole (Jordaan 2018).
The results obtained for goal 5 (gender equality) indicate
similar social risks in The Netherlands than in Bangladesh,
associated with a high risk of gender wage gap in the former,
and a high risk of female illiteracy in the latter. According to
the ILO global wage report 2018/2019, The Netherlands has
the highest mean gender pay gap within the high-income eco-
nomic group category. A possible cause to this gender wage
gap may be that part-time jobs or reduced working shifts are
mostly taken by women, due generally to personal and family
chores. This scenario is not reflected in lower-middle income
economies, where both men and women need to have full-
time jobs (and sometimes more than one job) in order to sus-
tain their families. In Bangladesh for instance, only 10% of
women and 4% of men have part-time jobs; meanwhile, in
The Netherlands, 72% of women and 26% of men have part-
time jobs (ILO 2018).
Int J Life Cycle Assess
G1. No poverty
G3. Good health and well-being
G4. Quality educaon
G5. Gender equality
G6. Clean water and sanitaon
G7. Affordable and clean energy
G8. Decent work and economic growth
G10. Reduced inequalies
G12. Responsible consumpon and producon
G16. Peace, jusce and strong instuons
0%
Coon culvaon (CN)
Knied Fabric (CN)
Shirt manufacturing BD)
Fig. 3 Weighted social risks contributing to each SDG, per life cycle stage of the shirt under study
3.2 Site-specific assessment
Table 2 describes the results obtained from the site-specific
assessment of the social performance along the shirt’s supply
chain. The table includes the characterized scores for all the
indicators considered, classified per S-LCA sub-category
and corresponding SDG. The characterized score per indica-
tor and life cycle stage is represented with a different color
depending on the social performance level achieved when
compared with the corresponding PRP, ranging from dark
green (better than above compliance) to dark red (worse than
non-compliance). A complete list of the values (qualitative
and quantitative) considered for each indicator and supplier
is contained in the Supporting Information. The two columns
in the right side of Table 2 include the aggregated value along
the supply chain, for each indicator, considering two differ-
ent sets of activity variables. The first set (T1) considers ac-
tivity variable the total worker hours of the companies in-
volved in the supply chain, independently of the functional
unit of the study (this information was obtained through
questionnaires). The second set (T2) considers activity vari-
able the amount of worker hours allocated to the shirt, deter-
mined by the worker hours allocated to each supplier (or life
cycle stage) within the PSILCA model (this information was
obtained by combining the price of the items with the worker
hours per monetary unit and sector indicated in the PSILCA
database). The allocation factors considered for each set are
described in Table 3. The first set (T1) gives more weight to
the spinner and the shirt manufacturers, while the second set
(T2) gives more weight to the fabric manufacturer and the
retailer. The T2 weights allocated to the shirt manufacturer
are significantly different between the two suppliers in
Myanmar and Bangladesh. This difference is due to a differ-
ent selling price per functional unit (FU) (higher in
Bangladesh, see Table 1) and a considerably higher ratio of
working hours per USD in the Bangladeshi sector (according
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Medium risk hours per shirt
Coon thread (CN)
Shirt manufacturing (MM)
Retail trade (NL)
to the PSILCA database). In both sets of results, the ginner
gets only 1–2% of the weight.
Results indicate that every supplier scores negatively in at
least 4 indicators. The spinner presents the worst performance,
scoring neutrally or negatively in every indicator (22 indica-
tors perform below compliance), while the retailer presents the
less negative performance, with only 4 indicators performing
non-compliance and six indicators performing above compli-
ance. The ginner is the supplier that performs above compli-
ance in a higher number of indicators (9 indicators performed
above compliance or better, but 12 performed non-
compliance).
The main negative social hotspots identified in the site-
specific assessment are related to (1) the number of hours
worked per week in the cotton spinning (60 h per week in
average) and the shirt manufacturing in Bangladesh (average
overtime of 36 h per week) and (2) an absence of a waste
management system in the spinning stage.
The aggregated results indicate that every SDG presents at
least one indicator with negative social performance. The neg-
ative performance of some indicators is especially high for the
SDGs 3 and 4, due to low performance in safe and healthy
living conditions and access to immaterial resources regarding
education. However, these goals also present the most positive
social performance of the shirt’s life cycle, due to good (above
compliance) social benefits provided to workers (especially
by the ginner and the shirt manufacturer in Bangladesh).
Other indicators presenting negative performance are related
to:
& Equal opportunities (in SDG 5), due to a very low ratio of
women in management positions in the fabric and shirt
manufacturing (in China and Bangladesh, respectively);
& Working hours (in SDG 8), due to overtime hours per
week in the spinning and manufacturing of the shirt (in
China and Bangladesh, respectively);
 Int J Life Cycle Assess

Table 2 Social performance of the shirt’s supply chain for different variable; T2, aggregated average value considering working hours per
indicators, classified per S-LCA sub-categories and SDGs. T1, aggregat- FU, according to model in PSILCA
ed average value considering company’s total working hours as activity
Shirt
T1 T2
S-LCA subcategory Indicators Ginner Spinner Fabric MN Shirt BD Retailer
G1 Fair Salary Lowest paid worker, compared to the minimum wage 0.1 0.3
Social Benefits & Security List of social benefits provided to the workers 1.0 1.2
Management policies related to private security personnel 0.0 0.0
Secure living conditions
G3 Number of incidents ascribed to the organization due to insecurity conditions 0.0 0.0
Safe & Healthy Living Conditions Organization efforts to strengthen community health -1.0 -1.0
Health and safety Preventive measures and emergency protocols for pesticide & chemical exposure 0.0 0.0
G4 Access to immaterial resources Presence/strength of community education initiatives -1.0 -1.0
Social Benefits /Social Security List of social benefits provided to the workers 1.0 1.2
Ratio of basic salary of men to women by employee category 0 0
G5 Equal opportunities
Ratio of male and female employees in workforce and management positions -0.6 -0.6
G6 Adequate management of waste streams and wastewater discharge 0.1 0.5
Access to material resources
Presence of certified environmental management systems 0.0 -0.1
Contribution to econ. development Investments of innovations and new technologies -0.2 -0.1
Fair Salary Regular and documented payment of workers 0.0 0.0
Local employment Strength of policies on local hiring preferences -0.2 -0.3
Presence of forced labor at the organization 0.0 0.0
Forced Labor Retention of birth certificate, passport, or other original worker documents 0.0 0.0
Workers' freedom to terminate their employment within the prevailing limits 0.0 0.0
Child Labor Absence of working children under the legal age 0.0 0.0
Existence of fire-fighting equipment and emergency exits 0.0 0.0
Provision of medical assistance and first aid 0.4 0.3
G8
Health and safety Access to drinking water 0.0 0.0
Notification of occupational accidents, incidents and diseases 0.0 0.0
Provision of protective gear 0.0 0.0
Equal opportunities Presence of diversity in the workforce 0.0 0.0
Number of hours worked per week -0.1 0.2
Working Hours Number of overtime hours per week -0.7 -0.4
Overtime payment rate 0.4 0.4
Freedom of Association and Presence of unions within the organization -0.2 0.0
Collective Bargaining Participation of employees’ representatives in decisions affecting working conditions -0.5 -0.3
G9 Technology development Involvement and/or investment in technology transfer or research and development -0.3 -0.1
Strength of policies in place to protect the rights of indigenous communities -0.6 -0.4
Respect of Indigenous Rights
Annual meetings held with indigenous community members -0.6 -0.6
G10
Number of individuals who resettle that can be attributed to organization 0.0 0.0
Delocalization & Migration
Strength of organizational procedures to integrate migrant workers into the community 0.0 0.0
Strength of Policies in Place to Protect Cultural Heritage -0.4 -0.1
G11 Cultural Heritage Is relevant organization's information available to community members in their spoken
-0.2 0.0
language(s)?
Public commitments to Presence of publicly available documents as promises or agreements on sustainability -0.2 0.5
G12 sustainability issues Engagement of the organization to present yearly communication on progress -0.6 -0.4
Access to Material Resources Management of hazardous materials 0.0 0.0
Organizational support (volunteer-hours or financial) for community initiatives -0.4 -0.5
Community engagement
Number and quality of meetings with community stakeholders -0.8 -0.6
G16
The organization cooperates with internal/external entities to prevent corruption -0.2 -0.1
Corruption
The organization carries out an anti-corruption program -0.3 -0.6
Documented statements or procedures to prevent engagement or complicity in
-0.2 0.0
Fair Competition anticompetitive behavior
Employee awareness of the importance of compliance with competition legislation -0.2 0.0
Supplier relationships Payments on time to suppliers 0.0 0.0
Presence of explicit code of conduct protecting workers human rights among suppliers 0.0 0.3
Share of audited suppliers regarding social responsibility in the last year -0.4 -0.3
Promoting social responsibility
Support to suppliers on social responsibility consciousness-raising and counselling -0.6 -0.4
Membership in an initiative that promotes social responsibility along the supply chain 0.0 0.5
Access to Immaterial Resources Freedom of expression at the company 0.2 0.3

Better than above compliance Above compliance Compliance Non-compliance Worse than non-compliance

& Respect of indigenous community members (in SDG 10),
due to absence of protective policies or annual meetings
with local community members by the fabric and shirt
manufacturers; and
& Public commitments to sustainability issues (in SDG 12),
due to low engagement of most companies with sustain-
able initiatives and low communication of their achieve-
ments in the social and environmental dimensions.
Most of the indicators, especially in the SDG 8 (decent
work and economic growth), presented a neutral performance
(neither above nor below compliance of laws or international
standards). These results can be interpreted as compliant with
the SDG, but with no remarkable efforts towards SDG
accomplishment.
The aggregated results when using two different activity
variables presented a similar outcome in most of the indica-
tors. Higher differences were observed in the indicator related
to number of hours worked per week, which presented a slight
negative performance for T1 and a slight positive performance
for T2. This is due to the different weights given to the spinner
and the fabric manufacturer in the two sets. In the first
weighting set, the spinner—that presents a very negative
performance—gets a higher weight (18% weight in T1 vs.
3% weight in T2), while in the second set, the weaver—
presenting a positive performance—gets a higher weight
(28% in T2 vs. 22% in T1). A similar situation is observed
in the indicator related to promises or agreements on
sustainability. The T2 results show a positive performance
due to the higher weight given to the retailer (30% in T2 vs.
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Table 3 Allocation factors for each unit in the shirt’s supply chain, according to two different activity variables
Ginner (%) Spinner (%) Fabric manuf. (%) Shirt manuf. (MN) (%) Shirt manuf. (BD) (%) Retail (%)
1 Allocation factors considering 2 18
total worker hours in companies
2 Allocation factors considering 1 3
worker hours per shirt (PSILCA values)
3% in T1). However, most of the other suppliers perform
badly in this indicator.
The findings of the study indicate a high potential for im-
provement along the supply chain in most of the SDGs, and
especially in the spinning life cycle stage. Even though some
indicators indicated better performance than international
standards or regulations, and many indicators indicated a level
of compliance (especially in SDG8), most of the indicators are
presenting non-compliance or worse than non-compliance at
some point of the supply chain.
4 Discussion
By classifying the S-LCA indicators into different SDGs, this
study assessed the potential effect of the product’s supply
chain into the SDGs, and especially, the main points of im-
provement towards SDG accomplishment along the supply
chain. The proposed approach gives an indication of which
goals (and corresponding targets) are mostly affected (nega-
tively or positively) by the product’s social supply chain, but it
does not give information about the degree of contribution to
specific SDG indicators, i.e., how much the life cycle of a
product is contributing to fulfill specific targets of the SDGs
as defined by the UN SDG global indicator framework. Such
degree of contribution was hard to measure due to the different
scope of the SDG framework (macro) and the S-LCA frame-
work (micro). Further integration could be achieved by using
SDG-adjusted S-LCA indicators, and especially, by creating
new PRP able to relate the scope of business activities to the
current degree of global SDG accomplishment. Additionally,
there are several social issues relevant to the SDGs that are not
fully covered by the S-LCA framework. This includes social
issues related not only to discrimination but also to environ-
mental preservation (which could be potentially covered by
environmental LCA).
In addition, social hotspots analysis conducted with data-
bases such as PSILCA gives an indication of the main social
risks at the macro level, aligning well with the scope of the
SDGs. Most of the indicators in social hotspots risk assess-
ments are related to statistic values at the macro level, which
can be more easily linked to SDG targets. These analyses are
useful to measure potential effects in the SDG of promoting
economic activities in certain sectors, and to determine where
22 18 37 3
28 7 30 30
are the main potential risks, and therefore opportunities, for
positive or negative social change. For instance, our analysis
indicated that whereas the textile sector in Bangladesh has
high risks of performing poorly in many SDGs, the specific
supplier in Bangladesh shows positive social performance.
Therefore, this product is improving the current social situa-
tion of a sector where efforts are especially needed in order to
fulfill the SDGs.
The utility of products that fulfill important functions for
society is not currently covered by the list of indicators
contained in the UNEP/SETAC methodological sheets
(Corona et al. 2017). However, such utility is relevant for
the SDG framework, offering a possibility for integration into
the S-LCA methodology. By this framework, such integration
could be made by considering if the function of a product
clearly contributes to (or hinders) the fulfillment of specific
SDGs.
This analysis provided several recommendations to the
fashion Dutch retailer. The company should aim at
implementing an environmental management system at the
headquarters and improving their social management. At this
respect, the company should ensure that the suppliers comply
with international standards related to weekly hours, overtime
hours, freedom of association, gender equality, and waste
management systems, especially for the cotton spinner in
China, and the shirt manufacturer in Malaysia. This would
require more stringent audits (that the company is already
performing in the frame of their CSR program) and a better
understanding of the actors involved within the supply chain
(the cotton farmer could not be identified by any of the supply
chain actors). One of the risks of obtaining primary data by
directly asking the suppliers is the underestimation of negative
impacts. Although in this case the results indicated more neg-
ative performance than positive, it could still be the case that
the suppliers did not report the most negative aspects of their
social management.
In the presented case study, the results obtained through the
social hotspots assessment indicated higher social risks for the
shirt manufacturing (in Bangladesh), followed by the fabric
manufacturing (in Malaysia). The risks in those production
units were especially high in the indicators related to certified
environmental management systems, trade unionism, and so-
cial responsibility. The site-specific assessment indicated dif-
ferent results than the social risk assessment, showing worse

social performance in the spinning stage (in China).
Additionally, the indicators related to working hours, safe
and healthy living conditions, and access to immaterial re-
sources obtained very negative social performance. The risk
of an absence of environmental management systems was
confirmed by the site-specific assessment that found an ab-
sence of a waste management system in the spinning (China)
and the retailer (The Netherlands), but not in the shirt
manufacturing in Bangladesh. Arguably, the unit performing
worse in the risk assessment (the shirt manufacturing in
Bangladesh) was performing better than the fabric manufac-
turer in Malaysia, and that of the alternative shirt manufacturer
in Myanmar. Also, the risk of low salaries observed in the
Bangladeshi garment sector was not confirmed in the site-
specific assessment, where the involved supplier complied
with the minimum local wage.
In this study, the results were aggregated along the supply
chain by using two different sets of working hours as activity
variable. The aggregated results were helpful to identify the
indicators that performed better or worse overall. However,
the use of aggregated values can hide relevant social hotspots
occurring only in one life cycle activity. For instance, the sub-
category working hours obtained a positive result overall
when considering the activity variable T2; however, it was
identified as one of the main negative social hotspots in the
supply chain. Additionally, the relevance of aggregating re-
sults is much lower when the goal of the study is to map the
negative and positive social issues along the supply chain,
aiming at improving the social conditions and contributing
to the SDGs. For the same reason, this study did not weight
the different indicators and sub-categories.
In summary, the S-LCA methodology still needs more de-
veloping efforts in order to be able to measure how much a
product contributes to the fulfillment of the SDGs, but it is
already useful to give an indication of which SDG is being
positively or negatively affected by the product’s life cycle,
and what specific improvements could be done in the supply
chain in order to accelerate the fulfillment of the SDGs. This is
currently a tool for internal social management of businesses,
and also for facilitating decision-making through the lens of
the SDG framework.
5 Conclusions
This study proposed a classification framework to link the
results of S-LCA with the SDGs. Such framework was applied
to a case study on the textile sector, assessing the social life
cycle impacts of a man’s shirt whose supply chain takes place
across five different countries. The classification provided a
first step into the assessment of a product’s contribution to the
SDG. Nevertheless, methodological challenges were found,
such as the different scope of the SDG indicators with respect
Int J Life Cycle Assess
to the S-LCA indicators. Future lines of research could focus
on developing new SDG-related indicators, and a new set of
PRP able to relate the scope of business activities to the cur-
rent degree of global SDG accomplishment. Additionally,
more detailed indicators measuring discrimination issues
should be developed in the S-LCA framework.
The case study indicated that every supplier within the life
cycle scored negatively in at least 4 indicators and their related
SDGs, and one supplier (the spinner in China) scored negatively
in almost half of the indicators and nine SDGs. Except for the
spinner, every supplier scored positively (above compliance) in
at least 3 indicators, mainly related to access to material re-
sources, and social benefits provided to the workers. However,
most of the suppliers presented negative performance rather than
positive performance, indicating several opportunities for im-
provement, especially in goals 5, 10, and 11. The main recom-
mendations for the final Dutch retailer included the performance
of more stringent audits to their suppliers, regarding weekly
hours, overtime hours, freedom of association, gender equality,
and waste management systems.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the company that
provided the data, as well as all the suppliers that participated in the study.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Annapoorani SG (2017) Social sustainability in textile industry. In:
Sustainability in the textile industry. Springer, pp 57–78
Anner M, Bair J, Blasi J (2013) Toward joint liability in global supply
chains: addressing the root causes of labor violations in international
subcontracting networks. Comp.Lab.L.& Pol’y J 35:1
Asif A (2017) An overview of sustainability on apparel manufacturing
industry in Bangladesh. Science Journal of Energy Engineering 5:1–
12
Benoît Norris C, Traverso M, Valdivia S, Vickery-Niederman G, Franze
J, Azuero L, Ciroth A, Mazijn B, Aulision D (2013) The methodo-
logical sheets for sub-categories in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-
LCA). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and
Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemiastry (SETAC)
Corona B, Bozhilova-Kisheva KP, Olsen SI, San Miguel G (2017) Social
Life Cycle Assessment of a concentrated solar power plant in Spain:
a methodological proposal. J Ind Ecol 21(6):1566–1577
Int J Life Cycle Assess
Eisfeldt F, Ciroth A (2017) Contribution of social life cycle assessment to
reach the sustainable development goals. Medellín, VII International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in Latin America 2017
Eisfeldt F, Ciroth A (2018) PSILCA–a product social impact life cycle
assessment database. Database version 2. Database version 1:1–117
European Commission (2003) Communication from the commission to
the Council and the European Parliament. Integrated Product Policy,
Building on Environmental Life-Cycle Thinking. Brussels,
18.6.2003 COM(2003) 302 final
Goedkoop M, Martinez E, de Beer I (2017) LCA as the tool to measure
progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Luxembourg,
LIST
ILO (2017) Global estimates of child labour: results and trends, 2012–
2016 (International Labour Office). International Labour
Organization Geneva, Geneva
ILO (2018).Global Wage Report 2018/19: What Lies Behind Gender Pay
Gaps
ISO (2006) 14040: environmental management–life cycle assessment–
principles and framework. International Standards Organization.
London: British Standards Institution
Jayawardana T, Perera M, Wijesena G (2014) Analysis and control of
noise in a textile factory. Int J Sci Res Publ 4:1–7
Jordaan JA (2018) Foreign workers and productivity in an emerging
economy: the case of Malaysia. Rev Dev Econ 22:148–173
JRC (2019) Sustainable Consumption. Indicators and assessment of the
environmental impact of EU. EPLCA (Joint Research Center). In: .
https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/sustainableConsumption.html.
Accessed 9/12 2019
Kamal Y (2013) Corporate social and environment-related governance
disclosure practices in the textile and garments industry: evidence
from Bangladesh (Dissertation Thesis), RMIT University
Köksal D, Strähle J, Müller M, Freise M (2017) Social sustainable supply
chain management in the textile and apparel industry—a literature
review. Sustainability 9:100
Kühnen M, Hahn R (2017) Indicators in social life cycle assessment: a
review of frameworks, theories, and empirical experience. J Ind Ecol
21:1547–1565
Lenzo P, Traverso M, Salomone R, Ioppolo G (2017) Social life cycle
assessment in the textile sector: an Italian case study. Sustainability
9:2092
Martínez-Blanco J, Lehmann A, Chang Y, Finkbeiner M (2015) Social
organizational LCA (SOLCA)—a new approach for implementing
social LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1586–1599
PWC (2015) Make it your business: engaging with the Sustainable
Development Goals
Roos S, Zamani B, Sandin G, Peters GM, Svanström M (2016) A life
cycle assessment (LCA)-based approach to guiding an industry sec-
tor towards sustainability: the case of the Swedish apparel sector. J
Clean Prod 133:691–700
Scheyvens R, Banks G, Hughes E (2016) The private sector and the
SDGs: the need to move beyond ‘business as usual’. Sustainable
Dev 24:371–382
United Nations (1992) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development -
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I) Chapter I, Annex I - UN Documents:
Gathering a body of global agreements. Retrieved November 16,
2018, from http://www.un-documents.net/rio-dec.htm
UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative (2009) Guidelines for social life
cycle assessment of products. United Nations Environment
Programme.ISBN:978–992
United Nations (2019a) About the Sustainable Development Goals. In:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-
development-goals/. Accessed 10/03 2019
United Nations (2019b) SDG indicators. Global indicator framework for
the Sustainable Development Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development. In: . https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/
indicators/indicators-list. Accessed 3/09 2019
Valente C, Rubach S, Askham C (2015) Establishing slow fashion-made
in Norway. a business model for a more sustainable value chain for
clothing. Sluttrapport fra et kvalifiseringsprosjekt med støtte fra RFF
Oslofjordfondet. Retrieved from https://www.ostfoldforskning.no/
media/1009/750-1.pdf OR.10.15. Accessed 2/03 2019
van der Velden NM, Vogtländer JG (2017) Monetisation of external
socio-economic costs of industrial production: a social-LCA-based
case of clothing production. J Clean Prod 153:320–330
Vermeulen WJV (2018) Substantiating the rough consensus on concept
of sustainable development as point of departure for indicator devel-
opment. Handbook of Sustainability Indicators (S. Bell an, pp. 59–
90). Routledge/CRC Press.
Weidema B, Goedkoop M, Mieras E (2018) Making the SDGs relevant to
business. PRé Sustainability & 2.-0 LCA consultants
Wick I (2009) The social impact of the liberalised world market for
textiles and clothing. B.Ruppert: Strategies of Trade Unions and
Womens’ Organisations.OBS-Workbook.Frankfurt am Main, Otto
Brenner Foundation 62
Wulf C, Werker J, Zapp P, Schreiber A, Schlör H, Kuckshinrichs W
(2018) Sustainable development goals as a guideline for indicator
selection in Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. Procedia CIRP
69:59–65
Zamani B, Sandin G, Svanström M, Peters GM (2018) Hotspot identifi-
cation in the clothing industry using social life cycle assessment—
opportunities and challenges of input-output modelling. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 23:536–546
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.